Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't agree--at bare minimum, you need a competing explanation, if even a vacuous one. If your explanation is "stuff only arises from like stuff", that's still a competing theory with more evidence.

But no, it doesn't need to be a well-developed theory if there's no support at all for its antithesis.

A second theory is adopted as temporarily true if it explains the facts better, but it is not necessary to disprove the first theory. Falsification allows you to disprove a theory with out offering a better explaination (I could disprove that F=ma, but not provide an alternative).

 

[TricksterWolf]

So Pasteur's work wouldn't be flasified if we observe spontaneous generation?

You can't falsify work. Do you mean his germ theory of disease? What would observation of spontaneous generation have to do with that?

Trickster

 

[TricksterWolf]

A second theory is adopted as temporarily true if it explains the facts better, but it is not necessary to disprove the first theory. Falsification allows you to disprove a theory with out offering a better explaination (I could disprove that F=ma, but not provide an alternative).

Eep. First, "F = ma" is a definition, not a theory. Newton's "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is the theory, and finding a case where it appears that the action is not equal and opposite is not sufficient to "disprove" it unless there is a competing explanation. It just means that the theory doesn't currently explain that case.

All theories are temporary, and "disproof" isn't an inviolate act. If there's only one theory to describe plate tectonics, and someone finds a hole in it (thus disproving the general theory), the theory will be modified to fit the new data. Even if the theory cannot be modified at present it is still the best theory.

Consider Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (a real theory). It was the prevaling theory until the General Theory was formulated, even though the existence of gravity effectively invalidated it. The General Theory eventually corrected this, but today the GToR and quantum mechanics disagree on gravity; yet both theories are needed for the functioning of many devices. Just because a theory is incomplete or because it is falsified by math or observations does not "disprove" it unless there exists a better contender.

Trickster

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Eep. First, "F = ma" is a definition, not a theory.

Technically, I never called it a theory

Newton's "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is the theory, and finding a case where it appears that the action is not equal and opposite is not sufficient to "disprove" it unless there is a competing explanation. It just means that the theory doesn't currently explain that case.

Disproof does not mean we cannot still use the theory untill a better one comes along. It may not be entirely accurate, but it is still valid for estimation.

All theories are temporary, and "disproof" isn't an inviolate act.

It isn't of the shade purple?

If there's only one theory to describe plate tectonics, and someone finds a hole in it (thus disproving the general theory), the theory will be modified to fit the new data. Even if the theory cannot be modified at present it is still the best theory.

Indeed. Disproof does not mean a new theory must be made, leaving a void in scientific knowledge in the mean time. We use the best theory available to use, even if we know it is not always completely accurate.

Consider Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (a real theory). It was the prevaling theory until the General Theory was formulated, even though the existence of gravity effectively invalidated it. The General Theory eventually corrected this, but today the GToR and quantum mechanics disagree on gravity; yet both theories are needed for the functioning of many devices. Just because a theory is incomplete or because it is falsified by math or observations does not "disprove" it unless there exists a better contender.

Wait, do you think that I'm saying that to disprove something, you must also provide an alternate theory? Because I think we're talking about the same thing here...

 

[TricksterWolf]

Wait, do you think that I'm saying that to disprove something, you must also provide an alternate theory? Because I think we're talking about the same thing here...

No, I'm the one saying that.

Nothing is ever totally "disproven" in science, where everything is open to scrutiny. Einstein's cosmological constant, something he created because he didn't like an expanding Universe, was considered his biggest mistake--but now we find there may be an effect similar to that after all.

My point is this: you don't effectively sink a theory into obscurity unless there exists a much better explanation. People who think evolution can be "disproven" by poking holes in it don't understand science.

Trickster

 

[Cirbryn]

Eep. First, "F = ma" is a definition, not a theory. Newton's "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is the theory, and finding a case where it appears that the action is not equal and opposite is not sufficient to "disprove" it unless there is a competing explanation. It just means that the theory doesn't currently explain that case.

All theories are temporary, and "disproof" isn't an inviolate act. If there's only one theory to describe plate tectonics, and someone finds a hole in it (thus disproving the general theory), the theory will be modified to fit the new data. Even if the theory cannot be modified at present it is still the best theory.

Consider Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (a real theory). It was the prevaling theory until the General Theory was formulated, even though the existence of gravity effectively invalidated it. The General Theory eventually corrected this, but today the GToR and quantum mechanics disagree on gravity; yet both theories are needed for the functioning of many devices. Just because a theory is incomplete or because it is falsified by math or observations does not "disprove" it unless there exists a better contender.

Trickster

Hmm. I’d call both “F = ma” and “every action has an equal and opposite reaction” laws, not definitions or theories. (See here and here). Laws are supposed to be universally applicable, so finding a case in which an external force on an object was not accompanied by an equal force working back on whatever was exerting the first force, would indeed disprove that law.

Laws merely take note of what seems to invariably happen. Theories attempt to explain why such things happen. So we might find that something doesn’t happen according to how the theory predicted, and thus know there was something wrong with the theory, but continue to use that theory in other circumstances where it seemed to work better. It wouldn’t mean the theory hadn’t been shown to have a flaw; it would just mean that it was still useful in certain areas even with the flaw. The theory might also be modified so as to try to address the flaw.

Also, AFAIK the general theory of relativity didn’t disprove the special theory. Rather, it extended the ideas of the special theory to situations involving reference frames that were accelerated relative to other frames. It did this, in part, by showing that a frame in a gravitational field would be indistinguishable from a frame that was accelerating. (See generally here)

 

[Biologist]

Consider Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (a real theory)

Einstein's method of making his theory was questionable. He didn't make any observations and measurements to come to his conclusion. Plus Einstein even with all his genius was guilty of rejecting things(quantum physics) based on pre-existing belief. He definitely isn't a good example of a good theory discoverer.

 

[Chalnoth]

Einstein's method of making his theory was questionable. He didn't make any observations and measurements to come to his conclusion. Plus Einstein even with all his genius was guilty of rejecting things(quantum physics) based on pre-existing belief. He definitely isn't a good example of a good theory discoverer.

Just because Einstein didn't perform the experiments that indicated that the speed of light was independent of reference frame doesn't make his methods questionable in the least. Scientists use the work of other scientists all the time. Why is it, do you think, that today we have such open methods of communication among scientsts as http://arxiv.org/ and http://www.pubmed.gov/ ?

 

[Gracchus]

Einstein's method of making his theory was questionable. He didn't make any observations and measurements to come to his conclusion. Plus Einstein even with all his genius was guilty of rejecting things(quantum physics) based on pre-existing belief. He definitely isn't a good example of a good theory discoverer.

Einstein was a theoretical physicist. He based his theories on observations made by experimental physicists. When you get your Nobel Prize, we may take your criticisisms of Einstein a bit more seriously, but probably not.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Also, AFAIK the general theory of relativity didn’t disprove the special theory.

I didn't suggest that it did. Reread my post!

Trickster

 

[gimmealiterofcola]

my baseball coach accused me of being a blasphemer for being a neo evoloutionist (incorporating the theory of evoloution and the into the creation) by saying that the creation was somewhat wrong and that it happened by god creating the universe by making the bigbang himself

 

[Cirbryn]

my baseball coach accused me of being a blasphemer for being a neo evoloutionist (incorporating the theory of evoloution and the into the creation) by saying that the creation was somewhat wrong and that it happened by god creating the universe by making the bigbang himself

Wow! What kind of a baseball coach goes around accusing his players of blasphemy? Evolution is accepted by quite a few (I'd guess most) Christian denominations. Is this coach of yours going to make sure no one but fundamentalists are on his team?

 

[Cirbryn]

I didn't suggest that it did. Reread my post!

Alright. You said: "Consider Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (a real theory). It was the prevaling theory until the General Theory was formulated, even though the existence of gravity effectively invalidated it." So I'll grant you didn't say the General Theory invalidated it. Still, my point is the Special Theory wasn't invalidated. Gravity didn't invalidate it. The special theory was only meant to apply to situations in which gravity isn't a significant factor. In those situations it's still used, since it's much simpler to work with.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yup. The special theory of relativity was never invalidated. It just applies to fewer situations than the general theory of relativity. And there's no reason to bother with the much more complex calculations of general relativity when the special theory will do just fine.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Einstein's method of making his theory was questionable. He didn't make any observations and measurements to come to his conclusion. Plus Einstein even with all his genius was guilty of rejecting things(quantum physics) based on pre-existing belief. He definitely isn't a good example of a good theory discoverer.

He is a theoretical physicist, as posted above. Besides, experiments comparing the difference between two atomic clocks, one 'stationary' on Earth, the other at a high speed in space, shows that Einsteinian time dilation holds.
The logically inferrable is just as valid as the empirically observable, though the latter is harder is dispute.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Alright. You said: "Consider Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (a real theory). It was the prevaling theory until the General Theory was formulated, even though the existence of gravity effectively invalidated it." So I'll grant you didn't say the General Theory invalidated it. Still, my point is the Special Theory wasn't invalidated. Gravity didn't invalidate it. The special theory was only meant to apply to situations in which gravity isn't a significant factor. In those situations it's still used, since it's much simpler to work with.

I agree, but the reason the Special Theory only applied to situations with no gravity is because Einstein had not yet figured out how to adapt the theory to the existence of gravity. My point is that his inability to explain gravity did not invalidate the entire theory.

Trickster

 

[Wiccan_Child]

*bumper*

 

[SLP]

You know the theory of evolution is on the brink of utter collapse when an uneducated redneck hick from Texas like me can figure it out in just few months.

Had you considered the possibility that BECAUSE you are 'an uneducated redneck hick from Texas' that, you know, you might be, maybe, wrong?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

[/color][/font]

Had you considered the possibility that BECAUSE you are 'an uneducated redneck hick from Texas' that, you know, you might be, maybe, wrong?
[/font]

Lvl 4 threadomancy cast....

So what ever happened to supersport?

 

[ReverendDG]

Lvl 4 threadomancy cast....

So what ever happened to supersport?

He moved on, he was tired of people trying to refute his awsomely(bad) posts